Skip to content

GLM 5.2 (batch) vs GLM 5.3 (batch)

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

79#100
vs
GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

79#98
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalGLM 5.2 (batch)DeltaGLM 5.3 (batch)
Capabilities
67
--
67
Benchmarks
81
--
81
Pricing
98
--
98
Context window size
96
--
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
96
--
96
Overall Result
0 wins
of 6
0 wins
It's a tie - both models win 0 signals each

Score History

Score History (4 data points)
GLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
GLM 5.2 (batch)

78.6

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

GLM 5.3 (batch)

78.6

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001800
Daily$6.00
Monthly$180.00
Annual$2160.00

GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001800
Daily$6.00
Monthly$180.00
Annual$2160.00
GLM 5.2 (batch) pricing:
Input:$0.70/M tokens
Output:$2.20/M tokens
GLM 5.3 (batch) pricing:
Input:$0.70/M tokens
Output:$2.20/M tokens
Tie
GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

79

Composite Score

Tie
GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

79

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)Winner
Overall Score
79
79
--
Rank#100#98
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Quality Rank#100#98
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Adoption Rank#100#98
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Parameters------
Context Window1049K1049K--
Pricing$0.70/$2.20/M$0.70/$2.20/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Benchmarks
81
81
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Pricing
98
98
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Context window size
96
96
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Recency
100
100
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Output Capacity
96
96
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Benchmark Head-to-Head(2 benchmarks)
GLM 5.2: 02 tiesGLM 5.3: 0
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.3
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
86%86%
Arena Elo
14581458
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

GLM 5.2 (batch)Strong Performer

Scores 79/100 (rank #100), placing it in the top 66% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.3 (batch)Strong Performer

Scores 79/100 (rank #98), placing it in the top 67% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose GLM 5.2 (batch) when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM 5.3 (batch) when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
GLM 5.2 (batch)Best Value
Input cost$0.70/M tokens
Output cost$2.20/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.037
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$43.50
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Input cost$0.70/M tokens
Output cost$2.20/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.037
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$43.50

Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.

Latency & Speed
GLM 5.2 (batch)Faster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5.2 (batch) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($2.20/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (79/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5.2 (batch)
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5.2 (batch)

GLM 5.2 (batch) and GLM 5.3 (batch) are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

GLM 5.2 (batch)
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 0% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

$3.90
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

$3.90
estimated monthly cost

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Max Output Tokens943,718943,718
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedJun 16, 2026Aug 18, 2026
Last updated: 32m ago

Related comparisons

GLM 5.2 (batch) vs GLM 5.3 (batch) (2026) | LM Market Cap